Welcome, Guest!

Column: Ideology trumps all in Bush's treatment of reproductive health

Tags:

The recent appointment of a staunch abstinence-only proponent to head the federal family planning program is just the latest sign that the Bush administration is hazardous to our health, Jessica Stark says

coljessica.jpg

JESSICA STARK
Gargoyle assistant editor
Posted Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2006
Opinions

JUST WHEN WE all thought President Bush couldn't possibly get more conservative, he spectacularly proves us wrong. But this time, it's not just politics — Bush's conservative ideals are beginning to permeate public health care.

On Nov. 16, our president appointed Dr. Eric Keroack as head of the family planning program at the Department of Health and Human Services — the only federally funded program solely concerned with reproductive health and family planning services. More precisely, he appointed Keroack to head HHS's Office of Population Affairs. His official title is deputy assistant secretary for population affairs.

In his new job, which he began last week (confirmation hearings weren't required), Keroack oversees OPA's Title X family planning program, which had a $288 million budget in 2005. According to The Washington Post, the program supports a network of 4,600 clinics that provide information and counseling to 5 million people each year. He also oversees a $30 million program that encourages abstinence among teens.

Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, is not only staunchly anti-abortion but also unwaveringly against the use of contraceptives. He is known nationwide for his crazy and unsupported medical theories concerning reproductive health.

Keroack's disturbingly abysmal credentials include being the medical director of A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit organization in Massachusetts that runs six pregnancy health service centers. The organization perpetuates the falsehood that having an abortion increases a woman's risk for breast cancer. The group also steadfastly opposes distributing contraceptives, even to married couples, claiming that the distribution and use of contraceptives is demeaning to women and human sexuality and can negatively affect a person's physical and mental health.

Keroack now conveniently declares that he disagrees with these claims; indeed, an HHS spokesperson says Keroack prescribed birth control to patients while in private practice. But it is clear his obvious pro-life stance and opposition to the use of contraceptives made him especially appealing to the conservative Bush administration.

Keroack's conservative, if unsupported, medical theories probably also won him support from our president. At abstinence conferences throughout the country, Keroack has presented his novel theory concerning brain chemistry.

This theory specifically concerns the chemical oxytocin, which is found in the human brain and is released during activities that result in positive social interaction, such as sexual intercourse, and is thought to promote bonding in social settings, such as sexual relationships.

Keroack claims that by having too many sexual partners, a person can exhaust his or her supply of oxytocin and will thus lose the capacity for having healthy, fulfilling relationships.

Interestingly, Dr. Rebecca Turner, one of the scientists upon whose research Keroack's theory is based, has publicly announced that this claim is completely unsupported by her studies. Apparently, our government likes to reward those who fudge the scientific aspect of their medical theories by putting them in charge of health care services for the entire country.

If truth be told, this all sounds like a bad joke. Since when are contraceptives demoralizing to women? Granted, using contraceptives in order to have promiscuous sex with multiple partners can have adverse effects on one's mental health and increase one's risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but using contraceptives in general can elicit very positive results.

In fact, it could even be argued that, rather than being demoralizing to women, they are empowering by providing women with the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies and protect themselves against STDs.

Furthermore, how can one use up a chemical in one's body? Most chemicals found in the human body are produced by the body itself and thus can continue to be produced as they are consumed. I'm no doctor, but almost anyone who has had any kind of sex ed course would agree that Keroack's oxytocin theory sounds completely ludicrous.

While it is definitely worrisome that the person in charge of federal funding for public reproductive health care is so ideologically extreme, Keroack's appointment will not drastically alter the country's family planning and reproductive health services. After all, there is only one federal program concerned with these issues, and the funding it provides cannot possibly be enough to control all of the abortion clinics, contraceptive manufacturing centers, or pharmacies that sell birth control pills across the country.

There are still organizations out there, such as Planned Parenthood, that will continue to provide couples with adequate and accurate reproductive health care and information even without government funding.

More important than Keroack, however, is the coming 2008 election. Hopefully the voters in this country will take Bush's performance into account and vote in such a way that will get this country out of the mess it's in. Once Bush is out of office, it's only a matter of time until Keroack and the many other incompetent conservative ideologues Bush has put into power are replaced with people much more competent and knowledgeable about their positions.

Comments

I think that Mr. Keroack is completely missing the great thing about losing all of your oxytocin by having promiscuous sex. Once you run out of this vital chemical, the government has the chance to make an UNBELIEVABLE amount of money, and here's how: selling oxytocin supplements! Think of the profits! No more national debt, and people can have sex with as many partners as they want without risking their vital bodily functions! Just a thought.

I'm really not sure what you mean when you say "Just when we all thought President Bush couldn't possibly get more conservative..." I think you're using conservative as a semi-derogatory term without fully understanding exactly what it means, or its connection to the Republican Party. President Bush is NOT a true conservative, certainly not a fiscal conservative. Reagan conservatism, the leading conservative movement, implies foremost smaller government. Under President Bush, the government has, quite simply, not gotten smaller, and nor has the budget. Even before the election many conservatives were distancing themselves from President Bush, or at least recognizing that his fiscal policies are distincively not conservative. William Buckley, who esssentially rekindled modern conservatism back in the 1950s, recently expressed his opinion that Bush is not a true conservative (in this case, in foreign policy). Your argument stands on its own without having to falsely refer to any decision by Bush as de facto conservative and therefore wrong or evil. -Ben

Ben, Ben, Ben. I'm afraid you miss the point. She's using the term conservative to state the fact that, when using a "political litmus test", Bush clearly shows up on the conservative side of moderate. While his policies often differ from conservative majority (or common sense for that matter), that doesn't make him any less of a conservative republican. Also, his economic policies aren't discussed in this article. His decision to put his alleged morals over public health is what the article is concerned with. No matter what political persuasion Mr. Bush subscribes to, his appointment of Dr. Keroak to such a high office is highly negligent; letting someone whose beliefs have no basis in scientific fact run an office concerned with public well-being cannot be taken lightly, as it could have vast repercussions. It is well documented that abstinence-only sex education is extremely ineffective, and his stance on abortion and the distribution of birth control devices can only be described as ludicrous. I don't think it is appropriate for a man who seems to fear sex as much as Dr. Keroak does to be the man in charge of disseminating health information to women, especially regarding his history of involvement in groups who spread misinformation to scare women out of having sex. On a side note, conservatives' paranoia at other people taking their political name in vain is nothing short of astounding. Jessica didn't slander your political persuasion, Ben. She simply pointed out that Mr. Bush is a social conservative, and he shows it. Much love, -Carl

Hey Carl, Jessica's still using "conservative" as a general derogatory-type term, and I think Ben is right in raising an eyebrow at that. And Ben didn't say he didn't agree with the points in the article re: Bush is stupid about this whole sex ed etc. issue. In fact, you even say "no matter what political persuasion Mr. Bush subscribes to," implying that perhaps Jessica shouldn't have played the "he's becoming more conservative" card. Sorry, Carl. I think Ben made a good point. People are becoming so polarized these days that I think we should be reminded that not all "conservatives" think the same.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <i> <b> <p> <br> <br />
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Word Verification
Please verify that you are human by correctly translating the image into text.
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.